Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
a pakistan on this particular trip. did he talk about what pakistan was not on his itinerary? guest: he did not talk about that specifically. it was very focused on afghanistan, but also on the border between afghanistan and pakistan. he did not say specifically why he did not go. i think it is pretty clear for a couple of reasons. the u.s. is trying to gauge just how much cooperation they can get from pakistan going forward. pakistan has a lot of u.s. trainers that have been working intensely with their special forces, and as a result of that, withheld some of the decade that went with them. they also repelled some of the partnership on the war on terrorism, so to speak. they are still trying to gauge that. for now, in the past, the key relationship between the u.s. and pakistan and the military have been between admiral mullen and his pakistan counterpart, the army chief of staff. i think that this point, the u.s. is still trying to weigh what they can do to move this cooperation forward with pakistan. host: the defense policy reporter a bloomberg news, thank you for being on the "washing
panetta went to iraq and afghanistan. he did not go to pakistan. i take that as a strong message. it is easy when you're in that region to attack on an extra couple of days for an important ally. i think that cross the minds of everyone who planned the trip. it was clearly a conscious decision not to go to pakistan. i think that is in part because when osama bin laden was killed on may 2 there was a list of things that we would ask the pakistan's to do, the pakistani to do, and i have not acted on any of them. this administration also put a hold on a $10 million in assistance. a great way to resolve that is sending the defense secretary to talk to folks about what is going on, but he did not. you are seeing already how differently the pentagon will treat allies in the region. "the in this morning's financial times" they had this headline -- guest: the withdrawal deadline is aggressive. they're talking about getting half of the troops out during the prime fighting season. they do not fight as much during the wintertime. we are starting to withdraw troops during a tumultuous situat
sightedness of it gets us in more trouble than anything else. pertaining to pakistan, having grown up there in the earlier years of my life, and it cannot tell you the immense good will that was there for the americans in the 1980's when we were fighting the soviets and freedom fighters of that time. the day the soviets left, the very next day everyone packed up their bags and left. that region was left with the master deal with on its own. come 9/11, all of a sudden they want that place to be fixed. well, no one was there for 13-14 years. we need to have a longer-term view. if we do not do that, there is no way we can solve our problems. thank you and i will listen offline. host: that may be a way to look at the broader question before we wrap up, but the remainder of the middle east long term. guest: this gets to the issue we spoke about earlier about whether the u.s. is going to support the democratic process in the future. i think the caller is right certainly in the case of pakistan and afghanistan. the united states lost sight of the importance of the region after the soviet the
and the kind of structure that we need to support going after al qaeda in pakistan and afghanistan -- that perhaps it is time to shut down $17 billion worth of money going to reconstruction projects when our track record really stings. i hope you all will convince me i am too cynical and angry and frustrated about the way we are spending money in theater. and i want to tell you, i am looking for good news and i hope we hear some today. there are too many people in missouri saying why can we fix this road, and then i look of the projects we are doing in afghanistan and it is very hard to explain to them why we can't fix that the road because we can't afford it -- yet we can throw money away in afghanistan on projects that were clearly not sustainable. and anybody spend any time thinking about it in the first place we would realize that. that kind of planning has to begin happening and that kind of accountability has to be present. senator portman is here. i will give him a time to get settled. we will continue the hearings and continue to provide oversight in this arena. it is a pla
the country in vision relations with pakistan, especially along the borders and with concerns about safe-haven? guest: safe havens, unfortunately, it is a fact that now everyone enologist. this is something we have been saying for the last 10 years or so. our president has still insisted on this. unless you are dealing with the safe haven, which is the root cause, no matter when you do in afghanistan. we will not get the objectives that we are both looking for. this is a problem, but the good news is we have had a constructive dialogue with pakistani government and also with other relevant authorities in pakistan to come up with a reconciliation program, something that we can both benefit from, to be an honest partner for the fight. host: for those discussions foster and all by the death of t osama bin laden? guest: even before that, we had started that discussion. now, after the death of bin laden, which was a great success for the afghan people and our partners, that created a unique environment for the reconciliation and everyone should take it very seriously. we should be honest with
stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened before. we're optimistic and can do it again. we need leadership and a game plan. number
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6